Brand management perspectivesin the twenty-first century

Ram Herstein and Moti ZvillingRuppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to define the tasks of product managers from the perspective ofprofessional brand managers and to point out the gaps between their short- and long-term tasks.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper conducted two studies: the first utilized a focus groupin order to define the tasks of brand managers. In the second study, 58 brand managers were interviewedusing in-depth interviews in order to define the various factors of each of the nine branding aspects.In the second phase of the second study, the participants were asked to point out gaps between thebrand managers’ long- and short-term perspectives.

Findings – The findings indicate that the daily pressure on brand managers comes from thedistributors, who are the decisive factor in the threefold connection (manufacturer-distributor-consumer)due to their strong position in the market and the ongoing requirement to learn from and to satisfy themsignificantly more than the competition.

Practical implications – The implications of the study to the brand managers’ approach is that theyshould nurture relationships with consumers, perform more frequent market segmentations in order toidentify new needs, and consequently reduce the distributors’ power.

Originality/value – The importance of this research is that it provides a new definition for brandmanagers’ tasks and copes with the real gaps between the short-term and the long-term perspectives ofbrand management, and as such supplies substantial qualitative data for better decision making inaccordance with the twenty-first century challenges of the brand managers.

Keywords Brand management, Long-term planning, Short-term planning, Brands

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionBrands today play a focal role in any business strategy of leading organizations(de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001). In the eyes of the manufacturer, brands provide ameans of identification with unique features (Yoo et al., 2000) and in the eyes of thecustomers, brands help express the consumer’s personality and self-expression (Phau andCheen Lau, 2001). Most of the research in the branding realm seems to focus on theoreticalframeworks that assist marketers to understand how their consumers perceive brands andrespond to their marketing strategies (Maison et al., 2004). Despite the growing importanceof managing brands in a turbulent environment (Elsner et al., 2004) and the growing effortsof organizations’ management to create skilful brand managers in order to better cope withthe challenges of twenty-first century brand management, little research has been carriedout to explore how brand managers should handle brands and provide a higher equity(Leone et al., 2006). In addition, most of the work on this subject (Bitner et al., 1990;de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001) is quantitative in nature and fails to convey aqualitative approach, which is essential in understanding the nature of the relationshipsbetween the organizations’ objectives on the one hand and the consumers’ needs on theother hand. Managing brands in the twenty-first century is considered a complicated task.This derives mainly from high market competition (Johnson and Myatt, 2003;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

QMRIJ14,2

188

Qualitative Market Research: AnInternational JournalVol. 14 No. 2, 2011pp. 188-206q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1352-2752DOI 10.1108/13522751111120693

Pinkse and Slade, 2004) and the substantial increase of consumers’ brand preferencesmainly as a result of changes in consumer buying habits partly because of the internet andthe technology revolution (Morganosky and Cude, 2002). Therefore, the “new” brandmanagers are required today to manage their brands in accordance with a new perceptionthat discerns between short- and long-term brand management perspectives and tobalance these two perspectives that in some cases are contradictory. In order to understandthe gaps between the short- and long-term perspectives in recent times, it is essential tounderstand the evolution of the role and tasks of brand managers from their earliest daysto the present. According to Low and Fullerton (1994), there are four distinct brandmanagement periods. The first period, defined as national brand management (1870-1914),was characterized by a system wherein several senior managers worked closely withbusiness owners and entrepreneurs on local advertising campaigns and on limited salespromotion activities. The second period focuses on the professionalization of nationalbrand management (1915-1929). This was a time of takeovers, as leading companiesacquired other brands in the market. As their product mixes grew, these giant companieswere forced to re-organize and turn their brand managers into division managers and evencompany managers, with mid-level managers taking their place. The managers becamemore professional in developing an approach that was oriented more towards marketing,sales and advertising. This stage was followed by the independent brand managementperiod (1930-1945), when the depression led to far-reaching changes in how companymanagers perceived the brand manager’s role. Brand managers in this period wererequired to be highly professional, with a more extensive background in advertising andmarketing than was common until then. The requirement that a brand manager be firstand foremost a marketing specialist paved the way for the fourth period in the evolution ofbrand management. This period, which might be called the age of the brand manager (1950to the end of the twentieth century), was characterized by the development of a newshopping culture that encouraged the accelerated development of huge varieties of newbrands for a large number of market segments. Hence this marketing step, made by thenational manufacturers, once more required the delegation of brand managementauthority to mid-level managers so that each brand could be managed separately.According to Panigyrakis and Veloutsou (2000), brand managers today deal withproblems in every day work such as the gap between their authority and responsibility(Howley, 1988; Henry, 1994; Panigyrakis and Glynn, 1992, Murphy and Gorchels, 1996),the number and the diversity of the interfaces they develop (Panigyrakis and Veloutsou,1999a, b), as well as the time required to build the desired relationship with them (Murphyand Gorchels, 1996), their contact with their supervisor, the lack of trust and lack ofexpectation in their support, as well as the leadership techniques they use (Murphy andGorchels, 1996). Another major problem is the insufficient support from top management.This is expressed by factors such as the limited training offered to brand managers(Richards, 1997) and the hierarchical status of the post (Murphy and Gorchels, 1996).

Practically, the need for a large number of brand managers today led to massiverecruitment of young marketers, some of whom lacked any professional experience in theareas of sales, advertising and research (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Hackley, 1999;Homburg et al., 2000; Kotler and Keller, 2006). Nowadays, at the onset of the twenty-firstcentury, the importance of the brand manager’s role is not in doubt. The question that stillhas to be addressed relates to the definitions of the tasks that brand managers handlein order to establish and manage a brand while applying long-term business vision.

Brandmanagementperspectives

189

The purpose of this study is to define the tasks of brand managers from the perspectiveof professional brand mangers and to point out gaps between their short- and long-termtasks, respectively.

Study 1MethodFocus groups as a major qualitative method are used across a wide variety of fields,of which marketing is one (McDonald, 1993; Nelson and Frontczak, 1998). In marketingresearch, focus groups are used to learn more about the potential of marketing programsfrom the consumers’ point of view in order to reach them more effectively (Morgan, 1996).Since the purpose of this study is to define the tasks of brand managers from theperspective of professional brand managers, the focus groups method was chosen becauseof its ability to provide insights into the sources of complex behaviours and motivation,apart from exploring what people have to say (Morgan, 1993; Kidd and Parshall, 2000).In addition, since it was essential in this study to define one main definition of the brandmanager’s task by different brand managers (food products vs non-food products; globalcompanies vs local companies), “the group effect” (synergy) was required (Carey, 1994;Carey and Smith, 1994). This method is the only one that creates interactions that offervaluable data on the extent of the consumers’ perceptions and diversity of opinions(Morgan, 1993; Osborne and Collins, 2001). A focus group, in which top-level brandmanagers were asked to participate, was utilized. In order to assure the participation ofleading brand managers only, the researchers obtained a list of all Israeli MarketingAssociation registered brand managers, who were then sorted into two groups: foodproducts brand managers and non-food brand managers. The next step was to sort thebrand managers by seniority. Managers with at least five years experience in the fieldwere chosen. By the end of the process, 16 brand managers were chosen: four brandmanagers of food products of global companies operating locally; four brand managers oflocal food manufacturers; four brand managers of non-food products of global companiesoperating locally; and four brand managers of local non-food manufacturers. Only brandmanagers who sincerely wished to take part in the one-hour process that was conducted ata leading academic institute were invited to participate.

The selected brand managers were required to define their role as brand managers.A number of various definitions were raised during the meeting, from which one definitionthat was acceptable to all the participants, as it best reflects their role was chosen.

FindingsAt the conclusion of the focus group, the following definition, which most preciselyreflects the brand manager’s roles, was chosen: “A 21st century brand manager is theone required to bridge the existing gaps between the three branding factors:manufacturer, consumer and distributor”.

An analysis of this definition reveals that as part of the brand manager’s daily taskshe is required to learn the relationships that evolve between the three branding factorsand to be able to supply swift remedies to any gaps that arise within the nine possiblerelationships (Table I).

The significance of this definition is that brand managers should not analyzebranding factors only through a narrow understanding of the relationship between twofactors (consumer with manufacturer’s brand), but by an understanding of a more

QMRIJ14,2

190

complex set of factors (consumer with himself, consumer with the manufacturer,consumer with the distributor). The significance of the brand will in this case be widerand will truly mirror the standing and position of the lone brand within the brandingenvironment. For example, if it becomes clear to the brand manager that the positioningof his brand is favorable in the eyes of the consumer, but nevertheless the consumer doesnot purchase the brand (because it is not available from the distributor he is loyal to),then the brand manager will fully understand the problem his brand has.

Study 2 – first phaseMethodAs the purpose of the study was to explore brand managers’ tasks regarding ninerelationships, a qualitative approach was adopted due to its ability to obtain first-handdescriptions of specified domains of experience (Haley, 1996; Hastings and Perry, 2000).In this sense, defining is based on information gained directly from the brand managersrather than from theories and concepts (Masberg and Silverman, 1996). The value of aqualitative approach, such as in-depth interviews, has become more apparent in consumerresearch over the past ten years with a number of researchers (Woodruff and Schumann,1993; Haley, 1996; Masberg and Silverman, 1996; Gibler et al., 1997; Hirschman andThompson,1997; Kates, 1998; Priceetal., 2000) and also in managers research (Halmanetal.,2003; Macdonald and Sharp, 1996; Verhoef et al., 2002) gaining insight into phenomena noteasily understood through quantitative measures (Grace and O’Cass, 2002). In addition,Cooper (1999) points out that when dealing with brands it relates rational, emotional, socialand cultural needs, and it is therefore essential to adopt a qualitative approach. Thus, a fullunderstanding of these nine relationships between branding factors are better soughtthrough an in-depth approach. Therefore, personal interviews were chosen as the mostappropriate means of data collection due to their superior ability to delve into therespondent’s memory via individually adapted probing (Zaltman, 1997).

In the next stage, 168 IMA-registered brand managers were approached via telephoneand e-mail and asked to participate in an in-depth interview. A total of 58 brand managerscomplied with this request. The interviews were conducted during March-May 1998 attheir places of work, at a hotel that hosted a professional conference and at an academicinstitution that organizes branding seminars. The average interview took 45 minutes.A total of 23 of the interviewees were brand managers in the food industry and 35 werefrom non-food industries. At the onset of the interview, each participant was required toanswer nine questions, the purpose of which was to define the role of the brand managerregarding each of the nine relationships (Table I). The brand manager was asked toindicate three managerial attributes relevant to each of the nine different relationships.

At the conclusion of this stage, the aspects that were mentioned by most brandmanagers were chosen, whereas infrequent aspects were not included in the model(Table II).

Manufacturer Consumer Distributor

Manufacturer Manufacturer-manufacturer Consumer-manufacturer Distributor-manufacturerConsumer Manufacturer-consumer Consumer-consumer Distributor-consumerDistributor Manufacturer-distributor Consumer-distributor Distributor-distributor

Table I.Matrix of “relationships

between brandingfactors”

Brandmanagementperspectives

191

FindingsAnalysis of the complete data from both Study 1 and Study 2 (Phase 1) emphasizes tenattributes which were found to be most important to each of the nine relationships.

Table III shows that for the relationship: manufacturer-manufacturer, the mostimportant issue is reputation (52); for manufacturer-consumer it is market segmentation(47); for manufacturer-distributor it is the importance of distributor as intermediary (58)and strength of distributor (58); for consumer-manufacturer it is manufacturer image (57);for consumer-consumer it is risk reduction (46); for consumer-distributor it is accessibility(58); for distributor-manufacturer it is terms of trade (58); for distributor-consumer it isloyalty (42); and for distributor-distributor it is distributor image (58).

Brands from the point of view of the manufacturerThe first relationship: manufacturer-manufacturerAs a first step, the brand manager has to check how the manufacturer perceives hisbrands and the significance he attaches to them. The need to understand thisrelationship before examining the remaining relationships stems from the fact thatthe other relationships between brand factors will be devised in accordance withthe significance the manufacturer attaches to his brands. To investigate the significance

Manufacturer-manufacturer Brand as strategic assetEconomic strengthExperience and seniorityReputationEmployer-employee relationsManagement approach

Consumer-manufacturer Manufacturer imageDevelopmental marketing

Distributor-manufacturer Strength of manufacturerCategory managementTerms of tradePlanogramsMarket dominance

Manufacturer-consumer Market segmentationMarketing contractStimulation marketing

Consumer-consumer Personal requirementsRisk reductionShortening the purchasing process

Distributor-consumer LoyaltyPrivate brand

Manufacturer-distributor Importance of distributor as intermediaryPositioning of distributorStrength of distributorDependence on the distributorProfitabilityLength and quality of relationship

Consumer-distributor AccessibilityAttractivenessExclusiveness

Distributor-distributor Distributor image

Table II.Attributes of“relationships betweenbranding factors”

QMRIJ14,2

192

of a brand from the point of view of the manufacturer, a brand manager should considerthe following points:

. Brand as strategic asset.Manufacturers find a variety of meanings in their brands.Established manufacturers consider their brands to be strategic assets, andtherefore, all the company’s operations center on the brand (Vigneron andJohnson, 1999). This potential can be attained by implementing a strategy of lineextension, as well as a strategy of brand extension, with the company being able toincrease its revenue in a relatively short while thanks to the excellent reputation ofthe original brand.

. Economic strength.A brand manager in an organization with thin resources will haveto investigate relatively cheap marketing tactics in an effort to penetrate the market.He must also employ inexpensive marketing tactics to ensure their continuingstrength. In contrast, a brand manager in a large organization rich in resources is ableto employ advanced and expensive marketing techniques, which will ensuregreater strength and increase the chances of the brand’s success in the market(Meziou, 1991). A wealthy firm is able to invest more in research and development,

Attributes Frequency

Manufacturer-manufacturer Brand as strategic asset 33Economic strength 43Experience and seniority 19Reputation 52Employer-employee relations 7Management approach 16

Manufacturer-consumer Market segmentation 47Marketing contract 31Stimulation marketing 9

Manufacturer-distributor Importance of distributor as intermediary 58Positioning of distributor 55Strength of distributor 58Dependence on the distributor 56Profitability 50Length and quality of relationship 44

Consumer-manufacturer Manufacturer image 57Developmental marketing 39

Consumer-consumer Personal requirements 18Risk reduction 46Shortening the purchasing process 32

Consumer-distributor Accessibility 58Attractiveness 49Exclusiveness 34

Distributor-manufacturer Strength of manufacturer 54Category management 32Terms of trade 58Planograms 20Market dominance 49

Distributor-consumer Loyalty 42Private brand 18

Distributor-distributor Distributor image 58

Table III.Importance of branding

factors among varioussystem relations

Brandmanagementperspectives

193

in high-standard human resources and in advanced instrumentation and facilities,all of which ensure the building of a modern quality brand.

. Experience and seniority. Brand managers in old-established companies withexperience in a particular branch will quickly be able to operate and manage theirbrand well. An organization that has operated in a branch for years and has learntfrom its mistakes, recognized its accomplishments and gained an awareness of thechanges in the interior business environment has a distinct advantage over itsrivals, who lack experience and years of operation (McGee et al., 1994). The brandmanager will no doubt be able to gain from the company’s experience in dealingwith similar occurrences and to receive immediate help and support fromcompany management.

. Reputation.Long established companies with a firm economic footing and lengthyexperience are not necessarily firms of strong repute in the market. Firms thatenjoy a sound reputation in the market are those whose brands are their mostimportant assets (Gray and Balmer, 1998). A brand manager who works in a firmwith a good reputation can handle his brand more easily and carry out complicatedbranding decisions in view of the status of the brand in the market.

. Employer-employee relations. The brand’s future relies heavily on the skill of thestaff. But apart from examining the quality of the work force at all levels, thebrand manager also has the responsibility of looking into the work relations inthe company. Large amalgamated organizations with a large work force arelikely to affect the good name of the brand despite the brand manager’smarketing efforts (Varey and Lewis, 1999).

. Management approach. All in all, brand managers are expected to handle theirbrands in line with the management approach typical of their organizations. A verycommon occurrence among local and international brand managers is desertion,or not being able to carry on as a brand manager for a great length of time (Weitzand Bradford, 1999). This phenomenon has two main reasons. The first reason isthat the brand manager is required to present extreme, often unattainable,economic results. The second reason is that management is often guided by ashort-term tactical business approach rather than a long-term strategic one.

The second relationship: manufacturer-consumerManufacturer-consumer relations are greatly influenced by the economic strength of themanufacturer and his experience in the market and in particular by his businessmanagement approach and the degree of importance that the manufacturer attaches tothe product. A brand manager who wishes to study how a manufacturer acquires hisconsumers has to consider the following aspects:

. Market segmentation. In order to persist in maintaining their marketing andbusiness goals, manufacturers must match their brands as much as possible tothe needs of potential consumers. The process of matching brands to consumersis a long-term one, beginning with a segmentation of the market by means of asocio-demographic examination, and ending with a follow-up of the consumptionpattern after purchase (Dickson and Ginter, 1987).

. Marketing contract. A manufacturer exhibiting a new brand to the consumeris perceived by consumer as shaving signed a contract with him. The terms

QMRIJ14,2

194

of the contract are simple: as long as the manufacturer continues to produce thebrand to the consumer’s satisfaction, the consumer will continue purchasing hisbrands. However, if some attributes are changed in the brand, the consumer willinterpret it as breaking the contract and will look for alternative brands (Gundlachand Murphy, 1993).

. Stimulational marketing. Manufacturers who consider themselves leaders in theirfields see themselves as a business entity indivisible from the world consumerscene, and therefore as holding a key position in the shaping of new consumertrends and new consumer habits. The starting point of these producers is thatconsumers see them as a central factor whose duty it is to work in their favor byintroducing new products and services which will supply their future needs(Porteus and Whang, 1991). In accordance with this approach, during the course ofhis operations the brand manager has to constantly look out for new businessopportunities, as well as for new and modernized items that can be integrated.

The third relationship: manufacturer-distributorThis relationship evolves from the two previous ones. The brand manager must takethe following aspects into account:

. The importance of the distributor as an intermediary. The distributor as anintermediary is in fact stationed at a main crossroads of brands on one hand andconsumers on the other. The distributor acts as a meeting place betweenmanufacturers wishing to sell their products and consumers wanting to buythese products (Rosson and Ford, 1982). There is today almost total dependenceon distributors, and therefore, brand managers must consider distributors as acentral branding factor; one must invest a great deal in strengthening theattachment to them in order to ensure a more efficient means of distribution.

. Positioning of the distributor. The brand manager has the ability to build a perfectbrand from the viewpoint of his consumers, a brand which suits his customers’needs and provides them exactly what they want. But if the brand is not put on salein a suitable store it has no chance of establishing itself in the market and becoming astrong and even leading brand. True harmony between the type of product and formof distribution can have fateful significance both for inferior brands (generic brands)and for quality brands of worldwide acclaim (luxury brands) (Anselmi, 2000).

. Strength of the distributor. A brand manager has to rely for most of his work ondistributors of a suitable size and of trading substance. A strong national brandmanager will find it difficult to struggle with small distributors, because hismarketing approach is more advanced and different from the systems thesedistributors are accustomed to (Anderson and Coughlan, 1987).

. Dependence on the distributor. The reliance built up by the manufacturer on thedistributor is one of the aspects that the brand manager has to examine closely aspart of his duty and managerial responsibility (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Thesignificance of relying on the distributor is most important in the case of brandmanagers of weak national manufacturers, who have to pay large sums to thedistributor and are forced to participate in the costs of advertising, maintenance,shelf arrangements and delivery that the distributor is responsible for.

Brandmanagementperspectives

195

. Profitability.The aim of every brand manager is to ensure the highest possible profitfrom the sale of his brands; hence, he has to locate distributors who will assure a widegeographic distribution and high profits. The rule on the subject of profitability issimple; the stronger the distributor is and the wider the distribution area is, so are thebrand manufacturers’ profits less, and vice versa (Jeuland and Shugan, 1988).

. Length and quality of the relationship. In order to maintain good relations withdistributors, today’s brand manager is obliged to take upon himself some of thetasks of the retailer, and thus ensure a preferred status relative to competing brandmanagers. These marketing activities include all retail distribution aspectsincumbent on the distributor: ordering of brands, inventory, commercializationand credits, returns and replacements (Anderson and Weitz, 1992).

Brands from the point of view of the consumerThe fourth relationship: consumer-manufacturerA brand manager trying to discover how the consumer regards his brand’smanufacturer has to take the following aspects into account:

. The manufacturer’s image. The brand manager must recognize three images ofbrand manufacturers as perceived by consumers: the image of the global brandmanufacturers, the image of leading national brand manufacturers and theimage of the manufacturers of local brands. Each of them has its own advantagesand disadvantages (Fournier, 1998).

. Developmental marketing. Many consumers perceive brand manufacturers ascommercial bodies, which apart from their basic function of selling products alsofulfill a need to identify consumer requirements. In view of the fact that consumersattach great importance to this role, brand managers are obliged to invest energyin understanding the customer’s needs and explore his requirements (Cannon et al.,1999). For this to happen, brand managers, in particular those of local brands mustfrequently convene focus groups so as to elicit all possible knowledge of theconsumer’s needs and requirements.

The fifth relationship: consumer-consumerIn order to understand how the consumer considers the relationship between himselfand the brand from his personal point of view, the brand manager has to scrutinize thefollowing points:

. Personal requirements. The sphere of consumer surveys, in the opinion of manymarket surveyors and even in the view of other professionals in the field,is amongst the most important in the marketing business; one of the mostinteresting, and at the same time one of the most complex (Vinson et al., 1977).

. Risk reduction. The central idea behind the purchase of a brand from theconsumer’s point of view is to diminish risks which go with the use of the brand.These risks are listed as follows: functional/operational risk, safety factor risk,risk of wasted time, economic risk, psychological risk, social risk, risk of losingopportunities and buying system risk (Tan, 1999).

. Shortening the purchasing process. A brand manager has to assume that most ofthe consumers do not remember the exact names of their preferred brands andidentify them by their easily spotted, individual outside appearance, the special

QMRIJ14,2

196

design of the brand itself and a logo of a particular color. In fact, these visualcomponents serve consumers as their main means of shortening the purchasingprocess (Emiliani, 2000).

The sixth relationship: consumer-distributorThe connection of the consumer to the distributor becomes increasingly material fromthe brand manager’s point of view with the growing power of the distributors relativeto the manufacturers. The brand manager is, therefore, required to examine thefollowing aspects in the relationship between the consumer and the distributor:

. Accessibility. Distributors’ policy is to open branches in every geographic regionwhich has enough customers to ensure profits in the medium run. Consumersenjoying retail services from distributors, especially in remote areas, display agreat deal of loyalty to the retailer. The connection between the consumer and theretailer has become very solid and is based on close and committed relationships(Titus and Everett, 1995).

. Distributor attractiveness.Today, consumers consider distributor’s stores not justas sales warehouses but as pleasure centers for the whole family, with all therequired facilities such as restrooms, parking and air-conditioning. In recent years,consumers have been looking for new retailers far from town neighborhoods, whocan supply a wide variety of services, and whose aim is to ensure an attractive andexclusive purchasing experience (Dennis et al., 2002).

. Exclusiveness of thedistributor.For many years, distributors have been endeavoringto become brands themselves in order to increase their market effectiveness andadjust in the best way to the traits of their consumers (Burns and Warren, 1995).

Brands from the point of view of the distributorThe seventh relationship: distributor-manufacturerIn order to understand the essence of the relationship between the distributor and themanufacturer, the brand manager has to examine the following aspects:

. The strength of the manufacturer. Distributors endeavor to work withmanufacturers whose brands are the most established in the market for twomain reasons. The first reason is the familiarity the consumers have with themanufacturer’s brands and their opinion about them. The second reason is theprofessionalism of these manufacturers and their ability to efficiently handlethe trading process. This must be managed in a smooth and continuous manner bythe manufacturers and distributors (Murry and Heide, 1998).

. Categorymanagement. It is estimated that 75 percent of consumer purchases fromthe distributor’s shop are not planned and result from marketing stimulation, suchas eye stimulation encouraged by an attractive product array on the shelves or byarousing the sense of smell by baking, cooking or frying foods at the point of sale(Dhar et al., 2001). Therefore, to ensure this, retailers cooperate with prominentbrand manufacturers and exchange information regarding consumercharacteristics and habits, local and world trends in the branch, newcomerswho want to enter the branch and new distributional and branding approaches.

. Terms of trade. Despite the fact that distributors want to work withmanufacturers who are prominent in the market, they do not necessarily have

Brandmanagementperspectives

197

any intention of accepting the trading conditions set by the manufacturers. On thecontrary, it is they who dictate these conditions to the manufacturers: control ofproduct prices, supervision and shelf arrangement (Chen et al., 1999).

. Planograms. The central idea behind these programs is to provide a suitableplanning scheme of the shop and shelf areas in order to ensure maximum use ofgiven shelf space, taking into account consumer preferences (according to thesales data regarding each brand). Using the planogram one can decide where toplace each separate brand on the shelf (on the top, center or lower shelf), how muchshelf space should be allotted to each brand (10 percent of the space, 50 percent,etc.), the correct number of products and which products should stand next to eachother (Dreze et al., 1994).

. Market dominance. Because of the current status and power of the distributors inthe market, many of them feel that the manufacturers can be “squeezed”, andtherefore costs that in the past fell on the distributor are today passed on to themanufacturer through commissions, reductions and various premiums, such as:sales bonuses, repositioning and commissions in all their forms (Dussart, 1998).

The eighth relationship: distributor-consumerThis relationship relies on the following branding aspects:

. Loyalty. Consumers still visit many shops and do not remain faithful to anyparticular one, in spite of the distributors’ added power and wide marketing activity,i.e. the range of products on display and the additional retail services offered toconsumers, and in spite of the fact that consumers prefer one particular shop. On theother hand, the need to purchase miscellaneous products will induce consumers tooccasionally visit the same particular shop where the owner’s recommendations areconsidered important by the consumer (Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997).

. Private brand. Today, with most distributors supplying more or less the sameservices, they find it hard to stay different from each other, and the private brandacts as the main differentiating tool, as well as the most important and effectiveone (Semeijn et al., 2004). In most Western European countries, Canada and theUSA, consumers deal with a specific distributor who provides them with theprivate brands that in their view are the most successful and are best suited totheir needs (Herstein and Gamliel, 2004).

The ninth relationship: distributor-distributorWhen the brand manager understands the significance the distributor attaches to theproducer’s brands that he sells and to his own brands, he will have to consider thefollowing aspects:

. The distributor’s image. The distributor’s strength and status spring from theimages of his shop or shops. This is not to say that a shop with a weak image willnecessarily be weaker economically than a shop with a strong image. The principleis that the shop’s image must fulfill clients’ expectations and the hopes of themanufacturers displaying their goods and products (Burt, 2000). The shop’s generalimage comprises eleven aspects: characteristics of the target audience, the positionof the retailer, situation of the store and geographic cover, variety of goods,

QMRIJ14,2

198

price levels, atmosphere, customer service, communal relations, advertising andpublic relations, personal sales and sales promotion (Porter and Claycomb, 1997).

Study 2 – second phaseHypotheses

H1. The relationship between the manufacturer and the retailer is more importantin the short term from the brand manager’s perspective.

H2. The relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer is moreimportant in the long term from the brand manager’s perspective.

Towards the end of the twentieth century, the perception arose that brands constitute thebusiness core of any organization (Rubinstein, 1996) and should therefore be managedprofessionally, so as to cope with business challenges such as competitive markets,corporate brands, accelerated penetration into international markets, an increased numberof brands, increased power of wholesalers, increased cost of advertising and partial loyaltyof consumers (Hankinson and Cowking, 1997). In light of this perception, managersand marketing researchers began attempting to characterize the role and function of thebrand manager. According to Panigyrakis and Veloutsou (1999a, b), brand managersspend most of their time with other staff members, in both the internal and externalenvironments, in an attempt to recruit their help for the promotion of processes relevantto brand distribution. According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), the brand managerof the twenty-first century needs a vision that is strategic, consumer-focused andforward-looking, rather than tactical and reactive. Hackley’s (1999) description of the gapbetween what is needed to what happens focuses on the quantitative brand managementapproach (terms of trade with retailers) rather than qualitative brand managementapproach (consumer needs). As summed up by Kotler and Keller (2006), managersof successful twenty-first century brands must excel at the strategic brandmanagement process rather than at tactics.

MethodIn the second phase of Study 2, the same brand managers were asked three additionalquestions. The aim of question number 10 was to find which of the nine relationshipswas perceived as the most important in terms of short-term perspective and why.Question number 11 was intended to examine which of the nine relationships wasperceived as the most important in terms of long-term perspective and why. In questionnumber 12, the brand managers were requested to indicate the reasons for the gapsbetween short- and long-term perspectives of brand management.

FindingsThe answers to question number 10 revealed that 41 brand managers (71 percent)perceived the “manufacturer-distributor” relationship to be the most attentionconsuming in their day-to-day activities; seven brand managers (12 percent) indicatedthe “distributor-manufacturer” relationship as second; six brand managers (10 percent)perceived the “consumer-manufacturer” relationship as third; and four brand managers(7 percent) indicated the “manufacturer-consumer” relationship as fourth on the scale ofdaily attention consuming.

Brandmanagementperspectives

199

As hypothesized in H1, the relationship between manufacturer and retailer is moreimportant in the short term from the brand manager’s perspective. The acceptedexplanation for brand managers’ focus on analysis and study of their distributor is that thebrand manager’s success is currently measured in the short term, that is to say by actualsales, and therefore their relationship with the distributor is crucial to their success.

The findings of question number 11 show that 36 brand managers (62 percent)indicated the “manufacturer-consumer” relationship as the most important to brandmanagement; 13 brand managers (22 percent) perceived the “manufacturer-distributor”relationship as second in importance; five brand managers (9 percent) indicated the“manufacturer-manufacturer” relationship as third in importance; and four brandmanagers (7 percent) pointed to the “consumer-manufacturer” relationship as fourth inimportance.

As hypothesized inH2, the relationship between manufacturer and consumer is moreimportant in the long-term from the brand manager’s perspective. The explanation forthe findings that the “manufacturer-consumer” relationship is perceived as mostimportant by brand managers is that a strategic rather than a tactical view requiresseeing the consumer as the central factor of the branding process. Marketing strategythat focuses on understanding the customer’s needs will ensure long-term competitiveadvantage over rivals and will diminish the dependence on the distributor.

Figure 1 shows the differences between the long- and short-term attributes relatedto various brand management relationships: MC (manufacturer-consumer), MD(manufacturer-distributor), MM (manufacturer-manufacturer), CM (consumer-manufacturer), DM (distributor-manufacturer).

It shows that where the manufacturer-consumer category is involved, the gapbetween the short term (7) vs the long term (62) is the most prominent.

The main answer repeated by most interviewees indicated that the source of thedaily pressure on brand managers was the distributors, who are the decisive factorin this threefold relationship (manufacturer-consumer-distributor), due to their strongstanding in the market and the ongoing need to study and satisfy the retailerssignificantly more than the competitors.

Figure 1.Long-term vs short-termbrand managementperspectives

7

71

10 12

62

22

9 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MC MD MM CM DM

Relationships

Num

ber

of r

espo

nder

s

Short termperspective

Long termperspective

QMRIJ14,2

200

ConclusionsThis research was based on two qualitative studies: focus groups and in-depth interviews.Analysis of the focus group results leads to the following conclusions: brand managers inthe twenty-first century should see themselves first and foremost as the ones who arerequired to bridge the existing gaps between manufacturer, consumer and distributor andto not perceive brands only from the manufacturer’s point of view. Practically, brandmanagers should analyze branding aspects from a very wide perspective and evaluatetheir brand as an integral part of the branding environment. Second, each brand managermust focus mainly on the following ten attributes while managing the brand:

(1) reputation;

(2) market segmentation;

(3) the importance of the distributor as intermediary;

(4) distributor strength;

(5) manufacturer image;

(6) risk reduction;

(7) accessibility;

(8) terms of trade;

(9) loyalty; and

(10) distributor image.

Emphasizing these attributes in every day work will allow the brand manager to focus onthe most meaningful tasks and allocate resources in the optimum way. Third, brandmanagers should make real efforts to focus their marketing strategy on understanding theconsumers in the short term as well and not neglect them as the tendency often is. In thelong run, this attitude will ensure a competitive advantage over rivals’ brands and, moreimportantly, will diminish their dependence on their distributor. The in-depth interviewsmade it clear that brand managers find themselves under real pressure because of thenecessity to cope with the requirements of the distributors and to ensure a better positionfor their brands on the shelves. This pressure is very realistic but can be decreased overtime by developing better relationships between the customer and the brand manager.Using more focus groups and other qualitative techniques, apart from quantitative datawill provide the brand manager with better knowledge of the consumer’s needs and hisself-expression desires. To summarize: our results from both studies seem to support thefindings of other scholars who studied the issue of the brand manager’s role in thetwenty-first century from the quantitative approach (Low and Fullerton, 1994; Panigyrakisand Veloutsou, 2000; Kotler and Keller, 2006) by emphasizing the need of brand managersto analyze brands from a long-term rather than just a short-term perspective. Furthermore,the importance of this research is that it provides a new definition for brand managers’tasks and copes with the real gaps between the short- and long-term perspectives ofbrand management, and as such supplies substantial qualitative data for better decisionmaking in accordance with the twenty-first century challenges of the brand managers.

Limitations and future researchAlthough this research is considered to be innovative for researching the brandmanager realm by qualitative methods rather than quantitative methods, this is just

Brandmanagementperspectives

201

a pioneering research. In this study, only brand managers from a single country wereinterviewed. Further research is therefore required to validate the findings in differentcountries such as developing, emerging and developed countries. In addition, thisresearch focuses on brand managers of food and non-food products, therefore, it isimperative to deepen this subject and learn more about brand managers’ tasks in severalother industries such as high-tech and different services sectors. With regard to thequalitative techniques that were utilized in this research, in future research it isimportant to use other qualitative techniques in order to shed light on brand managers’capabilities and qualifications so as to ensure better brand management in futuredecades.

References

Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Anderson, E. and Coughlan, A.T. (1987), “International market entry and expansion viaindependent or integrated channels of distribution”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1,pp. 71-82.

Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment indistribution channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34.

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firmworking partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.

Anselmi, K. (2000), “A brand’s advertising and promotion allocation strategy: the role of themanufacturer’s relationship with distributors as moderated by relative market share”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48, pp. 113-22.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosingfavorable and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 71-84.

Burns, D.J. and Warren, H.B. (1995), “Need for uniqueness: shopping mall preference and choiceactivity”, International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 4-12.

Burt, S. (2000), “The strategic role of retail brands in British grocery retailing”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 875-90.

Cannon, H.M., Yaprak, A. and Mokra, I. (1999), “Progress: an experiential exercise indevelopmental marketing”, Developments in Business Simulation and ExperientialLearning, Vol. 26, pp. 265-73.

Carey, M.A. (1994), “The group effect in focus groups: planning, implementing and interpretingfocus group research”, in Morse, J. (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 225-41.

Carey, M.A. and Smith, M. (1994), “Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concernin analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 4, pp. 123-7.

Chen, Y., Hess, J.D., Wilcox, R.T. and Zhang, Z.J. (1999), “Accounting profits versus marketingprofits: a relevant metric for category management”, Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 3,pp. 208-29.

Cooper, P. (1999), “Consumer understanding, change and qualitative research”, Market ResearchSociety, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “The criteria for successful services brands”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1095-118.

QMRIJ14,2

202

Dennis, C., Marsland, D. and Cockett, T. (2002), “Central place practice: shopping centreattractiveness measures, hinterland boundaries and the UK retail hierarchy”, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 9, pp. 185-99.

Dhar, S.K., Hoch, S.J. and Kumar, N. (2001), “Effective category management depends on the roleof the category”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 165-84.

Dickson, P.R. and Ginter, J.L. (1987), “Market segmentation, product differentiation, andmarketing strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Dreze, X., Hoch, S.J. and Purk, M.E. (1994), “Shelf management and space elasticity”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 70, pp. 301-11.

Dussart, C. (1998), “Category management: strength’ limits and developments”, EuropeanManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 50-62.

Elsner, R., Krafft, M. and Huchzermeier, A. (2004), “Optimizing Rhenania’s direct businessthrough dynamic multilevel modeling (DMLM) in a multicatalog-brand environment”,Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 192-206.

Emiliani, M.L. (2000), “Business-to-business online auctions: key issues for purchasing processimprovement”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4,pp. 176-86.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-53.

Gibler, K.M., Lumpkin, J.R. and Moschis, G.P. (1997), “Mature consumers awareness andattitudes toward retirement housing and long-term care alternatives”, Journal ofConsumer Affairs, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 113-38.

Grace, D.A. and O’Cass, A. (2002), “Attributions of service switching: a study of consumers’ andproviders’ perceptions of child-care service delivery”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 15No. 4, pp. 300-21.

Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.

Gundlach, G.T. and Murphy, P.E. (1993), “Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketingexchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 35-46.

Hackley, C.A. (1999), “Tacit knowledge and the epistemology of expertise in strategic marketingmanagement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, pp. 720-35.

Haley, E. (1996), “Exploring the construct of organization as source: consumer’s understanding oforganizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 19-29.

Halman, J.I.M., Hofer, A.P. and van Vuuren, W. (2003), “Platform-driven development of productfamilies: linking theory with practice”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management,Vol. 20, pp. 149-62.

Hankinson, G. and Cowking, P. (1997), “Branding in practice: the profile and role of brandmanagers in the UK”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 239-64.

Hastings, K. and Perry, C. (2000), “Do services exporters build relationships? Some qualitativeperspectives”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4,pp. 207-14.

Henry, S. (1994), “Restructuring: phasing out the brand manager”, Marketing, May, p. 8.

Herstein, R. and Gamliel, E. (2004), “An investigation of private branding as a globalphenomenon”, Journal of Euro-Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 59-77.

Brandmanagementperspectives

203

Hirschman, E.C. and Thompson, C.J. (1997), “Why media matter: toward a richer understandingof consumers’ relationships with advertising and mass media”, Journal of Advertising,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 44-60.

Homburg, C.J., Workman, J.P. and Jensen, O. (2000), “Fundamental changes in marketingorganization: the movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure”, Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 459-78.

Howley, M. (1988), “Is there need for the product manager?”, The Quarterly Review of Marketing,Spring, pp. 18-22.

Jeuland, A.P. and Shugan, S.M. (1988), “Channel of distribution profits when channel membersform conjectures”, Marketing Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 202-10.

Johnson, J.P. and Myatt, D.P. (2003), “Multiproduct quality competition: fighting brands andproduct line pruning”, American Economic Review, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 748-74.

Kates, S. (1998), “A qualitative exploration into voters’ ethical perceptions of politicaladvertising: discourse, disinformation, and moral boundaries”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 17 No. 16, pp. 1871-85.

Kidd, P.S. and Parshall, M.B. (2000), “Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigorin focus group research”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 293-308.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L. and Srivastava, R. (2006), “Linkingbrand equity to consumer equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-38.

Low, G.S. and Fullerton, R.A. (1994), “Brands, brand management, and the brand managersystem: a critical-historical evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 173-90.

McDonald, W.J. (1993), “Focus group research dynamics and reporting: an examination ofresearch objectives and moderator influences”, Journal of Academy Marketing Science,Vol. 21, pp. 161-8.

McGee, J.E., Dowling, M.J. and Megginson, W.L. (1994), “Cooperative strategy and new ventureperformance: the role of business strategy and management experience”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 565-80.

Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B. (1996), “Management perceptions of the importance of brandawareness as an indication of advertising effectiveness”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 1-15.

Macintosh, G. and Lockshin, L.S. (1997), “Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-levelperspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 487-97.

Maison, D., Greenwald, A.G. and Bruin, R.H. (2004), “Predictive validity of the implicitassociation test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior”, Journal ofConsumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 405-15.

Masberg, B.A. and Silverman, L.H. (1996), “Visitor experiences at heritage sites:a phenomenological approach”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 20-8.

Meziou, F. (1991), “Areas of strength and weakness in the adoption of the marketing concept bysmall manufacturing firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29, pp. 63-76.

Morgan, D.L. (1993), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Morgan, D.L. (1996), “Focus groups”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, pp. 129-52.

QMRIJ14,2

204

Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2002), “Consumer demand for online food retailing: is it reallya supply side issue?”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30No. 10, pp. 451-8.

Murphy, W. and Gorchels, L. (1996), “How to improve product management effectiveness”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25, pp. 47-58.

Murry, J.R. and Heide, J.B. (1998), “Managing promotion program participation withinmanufacturer-retailer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, January, pp. 58-69.

Nelson, J.E. and Frontczak, N.T. (1998), “How acquaintanceship and analyst can influence focusgroup results”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17, pp. 41-8.

Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2001), “Pupils’ views of the role and values of the science curriculum:a focus-group study”, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 441-67.

Panigyrakis, G. and Glynn, L. (1992), “Women consumer product mangers in France”,in Baker, M. (Ed.), Marketing Perspectives, Vol. 2, Addison Wesley, London.

Panigyrakis, G. and Veloutsou, C. (1999a), “Brand managers’ interfaces in different consumergoods industries”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8, pp. 19-37.

Panigyrakis, G. and Veloutsou, C. (1999b), “Brand managers’ relations with industrial serviceproviders in pharmaceutical and other companies”, Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, Vol. 14, pp. 229-45.

Panigyrakis, G. and Veloutsou, C. (2000), “Problems and future of the brand managementstructure in the fast moving consumer goods industry: the viewpoint of brand managers inGreece”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 165-84.

Phau, I. and Cheen Lau, K. (2001), “Brand personality and consumer self-expression: single ordual carriageway?”, Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 428-44.

Pinkse, J. and Slade, M.E. (2004), “Mergers, brand competition, and the price of a pint”, EuropeanEconomic Review, Vol. 48, pp. 617-43.

Porter, S.S. and Claycomb, C. (1997), “The influence of brand recognition on retail store image”,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 373-87.

Porteus, E.L. and Whang, S. (1991), “On manufacturing/marketing incentives”, ManagementScience, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1166-81.

Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Folkman Curasi, C. (2000), “Older consumers disposition of specialpossessions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, pp. 179-201.

Richards, A. (1997), “What is holding today’s brand manager?”, Marketing, February, pp. 16-17.

Rosson, P. and Ford, L.D. (1982), “Manufacturer-overseas distributor relations and exportperformance”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 57-69.

Rubinstein, H. (1996), “Brand first management”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12,pp. 269-80.

Semeijn, J., van Riel, A.C.R. and Ambrosini, A.B. (2004), “Consumer evaluations of store brands:effects of store image and product attributes”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Vol. 11, pp. 247-58.

Tan, S.J. (1999), “Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in internet shopping”, Journalof Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 163-80.

Titus, P.A. and Everett, P.E. (1995), “The consumer retail search process: a conceptual model andresearch agenda”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 106-19.

Varey, R. and Lewis, B. (1999), “A broadened conception of internal marketing”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 9/10, pp. 926-44.

Brandmanagementperspectives

205

Verhoef, P.C., Nijssen, E.J. and Sloot, L.M. (2002), “Strategic reactions of national brandmanufacturers towards private labels”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 11/12,pp. 1309-26.

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “A review and a conceptual framework ofprestige-seeking consumer behavior”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, No. 1,pp. 1-15.

Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E. and Lamont, M. (1977), “The role of personal values in marketing andconsumer behaviour. Can personal values be used to assist marketers in determiningconsumer choice behaviour”, April, pp. 44-50.

Weitz, B.A. and Bradford, K.D. (1999), “Personal selling and sales management: a relationshipmarketing perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 241-54.

Woodruff, R.B. and Schumann, D.W. (1993), “Understanding value and satisfaction from thecustomer’s point of view”, Survey of Business, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-42.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements andbrand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.

Zaltman, G. (1997), “Rethinking market research: putting people back in”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 19, pp. 424-37.

About the authorsRam Herstein is Head of the Marketing Program and Associate Professor of Marketing at theRuppin Academic Center, Israel. His research area is branding and corporate identity and hispapers have been published in leading marketing and business academic journals. Ram Hersteinis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Ramh@ruppin.ac.il

Moti Zvilling is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the Lander Institute, Jerusalem AcademicCenter Israel, and a post-doc Fellowship in the Department of Information Systems Engineeringat Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

QMRIJ14,2

206

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints